SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Comparative efficacy of contralateral versus ipsilateral open-door laminoplasty for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnilateral open-door laminoplasty (UODL) is an established posterior surgical intervention for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). However, a conclusive consensus is lacking regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of performing the open-door procedure on the contralateral versus the ipsilateral side relative to the predominant compression or symptoms.
methodsA systematic literature search adhering to PRISMA guidelines was conducted across multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang) from inception to August 2025. Comparative studies evaluating contralateral versus ipsilateral UODL for cervical OPLL were included. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 software.
resultsSeven case-control studies met the inclusion criteria, with three included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences between contralateral and ipsilateral UODL in postoperative JOA score, JOARR, VAS, NDI, operative time, blood loss, C5 palsy, or axial pain. Narrative synthesis of radiographic outcomes suggested the contralateral approach might be associated with greater postoperative spinal cord area (SCA), whereas the ipsilateral approach could induce more significant spinal cord shift. For lateral-type OPLL, the contralateral approach appeared superior in some studies.
conclusionsBoth contralateral and ipsilateral UODL are effective for managing cervical OPLL, yielding comparable improvements in neurological function, patient-reported outcomes, perioperative parameters, and complication rates. The choice of surgical approach should be individualized, considering specific OPLL morphology (with a potential preference for contralateral UODL in lateral-type OPLL) and the distinct radiographic profiles associated with each technique. Definitive superiority of one technique over the other cannot be established based on current evidence, and further large-scale, high-quality studies are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.